The IP over ATM Mailing List Archive by date

Cell Relay Retreat>List Archive>month:1995-May> msg00139



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

The purpose of IP over ATM and What size is a LIS?

  • From: Andrew Smith <asmith@Baynetworks.COM>
  • Date: Thu, 11 May 95 11:45:15 PDT
  • CC: ip-atm@matmos.hpl.hp.com


> To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp>
> Cc: hiroshi@ctr.columbia.edu (Hiroshi Esaki), ip-atm@matmos.hpl.hp.com
> Subject: Re: The purpose of IP over ATM 
> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 11 May 1995 13:03:47 +0200."
>              <199505110404.NAA10799@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp> 
> Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 13:43:46 -0400
> From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@ans.net>

> There is no reason why a LIS should be made large.  The fact that LIS
> are kept small and interconnected by routers to form an internetwork
> is a feature of IP, and a featue of Classical IP over ATM, not a bug.
...
> 
> Curtis
> 
> ps- Please let this thread die.

I don't think we should let this thread die until we have answered the
question posed by Grenville: the WG has never defined what it means by
what Curtis calls "large". The only concensus we seem to have so far
is that 2 <= "large" <= less-than-global. Can we please try to get
a little more focussed on narrowing this range? 


Andrew


********************************************************************************
Andrew Smith					TEL:	+1 408 764 1574
Technology Synergy Unit				FAX:	+1 408 988 5525
Bay Networks, Inc.				E-m:	asmith@baynetworks.com
Santa Clara, CA
********************************************************************************